accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William Slacum <wsla...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: git-based site and jekyll
Date Fri, 11 Mar 2016 03:24:03 GMT
I would like to request at least one frame and one scrolling marquee. Can
we blingee the Accumulo logo?

On Thursday, March 10, 2016, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> * Some companies on http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo/people.html are
> goofed as are the timezones.
> * Some broken links on http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo/source.html.
> Coding practices are also messed up.
> * http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo/contrib.html contrib project entries
> are a little wacky.
> * http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo/screenshots.html is weird with the
> monitor screenshot (should be beneath the text?)
> * Just noticed that Other and Documentation both have a link to the
> papers/presentations. That might actually be how the site is now, just
> realized it's duplicative.
>
> Thanks again for doing this. It's great!
>
> Christopher wrote:
>
>> Actually, I now have it all working (as far as I can tell) with everything
>> pretty much the same as it looks with CMS today. After people have taken
>> the time to give it a glance, I'll push it to the ASF repo, and then push
>> the generated site to a separate branch. Then we can put in the INFRA
>> ticket to switch from svn to git.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:42 PM Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>  wrote:
>>
>> I'm working on converting our current site contents over to jekyll at
>>> https://github.com/ctubbsii/accumulo/tree/gh-pages
>>> (view at http://ctubbsii.github.io/accumulo)
>>>
>>> Yes, it's terrible right now... it's in progress. :)
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:21 PM Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Lazy consensus is fine. If there are no objections, I don't want to hold
>>>> things up. I feel like I've adequately expressed my concerns. Silence
>>>> can and should be treated as acknowledgement for this, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> Christopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Another reason we probably shouldn't worry about this: anybody can
>>>>>
>>>> create a
>>>>
>>>>> DNS name at their leisure which transparently redirects to
>>>>> accumulo.apache.org and serves its contents. This is perfectly
>>>>>
>>>> legitimate
>>>>
>>>>> for a number of reasons, including corporate proxies/mirrors,
>>>>> URL-shortening services, caching services, archiving services,
>>>>> vision-impaired accessibility services, foreign-language DNS mappings,
>>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>> so-on.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think when it comes to trademarks and our website, our area of
>>>>> concern
>>>>> should mostly focus on when people misrepresent our trademark in the
>>>>>
>>>> course
>>>>
>>>>> of their mirroring/archiving. There's no risk of that for a mirror that
>>>>>
>>>> is
>>>>
>>>>> explicitly under our control, but I'm really leaning towards the
>>>>>
>>>> javascript
>>>>
>>>>> to detect and display a message about the canonical location just to
>>>>> mitigate any possibility for concern.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you still have concerns, I'd be happy to put it up for a formal vote
>>>>> from the PMC, or to get feedback from ASF trademarks folks before we
>>>>> proceed.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 3:22 PM Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I think the difference is that archive.org (and others -- google
>>>>>> cached pages come to mind) are devoted/known for that specific
>>>>>> purpose.
>>>>>> The fact that Github ends up being a "de-facto" location for software
>>>>>> projects, I'm just nervous about the expecting good faith from the
>>>>>> denizens of the internet. Maybe I'm just worrying too much. If there's
>>>>>> sufficient "it'll be ok" opinion coming from the PMC, it's fine by
me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christopher wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't imagine there's a trademark issue since it's really just
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> acting
>>>>
>>>>> as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a mirror. If there were trademark issues, I imagine sites like
>>>>>>> http://archive.org would be in big trouble. But, it certainly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> couldn't
>>>>
>>>>> hurt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to find out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another option to sabotage the GH-rendered site is to add some
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> javascript
>>>>
>>>>> which detects the location and displays an informative link back to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> canonical location for the site. That should be simple enough to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's also probably worth mentioning that this concern only comes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> about
>>>>
>>>>> for point #4 (or if we use the branch name gh-pages in point #1).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Josh Elser wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The one concern I had was regarding automatic rendering
of what
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>
>>>>> look like "the Apache Accumulo website" on Github (both
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> apache/accumulo
>>>>
>>>>> github account and other forks).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Christopher had said that no one seemed to object in
comdev@ when
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> he
>>>>
>>>>> talked about this a while back. I wanted to make sure everyone
>>>>>>>>> considered this (for example, Christopher's fork of Drill's
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> repository
>>>>
>>>>> now also looks like a canonical host of the Apache Drill project).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>
>>>>> not actively stating that I think it's an issue at this point, only
>>>>>>>>> suggesting that we give it some thought and maybe ask
someone who
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> more knowledgable (Shane from trademarks?) before moving
forward.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>
>>>>> worst case I envision is that we find some way to "gimp" the
>>>>>>>>> github-rendered site (redirect back to the canonical
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> accumulo.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or similar).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Christopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I got some information back from INFRA about how
the git-based
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sites
>>>>
>>>>> work.
>>>>>>>>>> It's just plain old static hosting of a git branch.
So, whatever
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we'd
>>>>
>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in a specified branch would show up directly on the site,
no
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rendering
>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> generation. This would completely bypass CMS and buildbot
staging
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> builds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Was discussing this with elserj in IRC, and these ideas
came out of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Switch site to use git branch named "site" or "website"
or
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> similar.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Use jekyll 3 to generate the static site contents in this git
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> branch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Store the unrendered (markdown) jekyll stuff in a gh-pages
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> branch.
>>>>
>>>>> 4. Possibly set up a post-commit hook on gh-pages branch to render
>>>>>>>>>> locally
>>>>>>>>>> and commit the generated static site to the "site"
branch.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message